I disagree with your disagreement. You're in the minority here.
Allow me to put this "opinion" you're defending -- the one you're saying isn't blatant hypocrisy -- into words:
"The 1988 consecrations were great. The 2021 consecration of Fr. Pagliarani was great. But those consecrations done by +Williamson a few years earlier, under similar circuмstances and for the same reason? TOTALLY NOT LEGIT. The Church was practically flourishing at that time, under the beneficent tutelage of good Pope Francis. Consecrations without papal mandate during that time were TOTALLY unnecessary, totally schismatic, except for the one done just a few years later under the same Pope. That one was great."
Yeah, I'm going to have to call out anyone holding the above-described opinion as being stupid in the extreme. Nothing personal.
I'm aware I'm in the minority here, and I may well be wrong, but I'm still gonna push back in hopes of learning more.
So essentially your argument is that the only way someone could disagree with the Williamson consecrations is either if they believe the Church is hunky dory under Pope Francis, or else they believe that episcopal consecrations without papal approval are never justified no matter what. But I don't think those are the ONLY possible positions you could take.
I can see a few other possibilities
1: Someone might believe emergency consecrations are only justified if the alternative is the Traditional movement being very likely left without a bishop, in other words, you can't just consecrate as many bishops as you want *because* there's a crisis in the Church, but you can if there's a real possibility of Traditional mass and sacraments being wiped out if you didn't. ONE COULD ARGUE that in a scenario where all of the original SSPX consecrands are still alive, its too early.
2: Someone might believe emergency consecrations are only justified if any possibility of getting permission from the proper authorities without #1 happening has sailed. And considering Francis gave permission for confessions, one might have thought that there was a real possibility of getting permission for an episcopal consecration, as naive as that might seem.
3: If someone held to #2, he might have seen the recent repeal of the Motu Proprio as fundamentally changing the likelihood of getting some kind of permission (which is different than believing that the Church was in good shape.)
4: On the other hand, if someone's basis was #1, I would agree that 2021 doesn't seem that much different than 2017. However, if the SSPX were to wait until all of its bishops were near their deathbeds (like Lefebvre seemingly did) it would seem to at least be consistent, even if wrong.
To be clear, all I'm saying is that I think you could be in good faith and believe that, just like you yourself would admit somebody can be in good faith and be a sedevacantist or an FSSPer. I'm not saying I'm convinced that opinion is correct.
Topic: SSPX rumor (Read 2145 times)